Finally, someone has called Mayor Rob Ford to account for his reckless actions. And, as always, an unrepentant Ford blames everyone but himself for his troubles.

Justice Charles Hackland removed Ford from office Monday, effective Dec. 10. Hackland ruled the mayor of two years had violated municipal conflict-of-interest rules when he spoke and voted on a motion that recommended he repay $3,150 he solicited from city hall lobbyists for his private football foundation.

Ford says he will appeal. He will also ask a judge to keep him in office — beyond Dec. 10 — until the appeal is heard.

And in words and actions that define this mayor and amplify what Justice Hackland called “a stubborn sense of entitlement,” Ford assured everyone he will just up and run in a byelection if he loses the appeal.

In contrast, Justice Hackland’s verdict seem to bar Ford from serving the rest of the term. He can run for re-election again in 2014.

The judge’s stunning verdict has thrown an already chaotic city government into a total mess. For the past year, city councillors, not the mayor, have effectively led the city government. Now, councillors don’t know if they have a leader, even in name only.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, city council will consider the new appointments to boards and commissions and council committees. But already, one Ford ally, Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, has jumped ship, resigning from the mayor’s executive, claiming his constituents want him to distance himself from the Ford administration.

The rest of council will be reading public reaction to determine their next move. Should council appoint deputy mayor Doug Holyday as a stand-in for two years? Or should council call a byelection to replace the mayor?

Neither. Not now. Rather, city council should sit tight and do nothing until the legal dust settles. If a court suspends Justice Hackland’s dismissal verdict — grants a “stay” — until Ford’s appeal is heard, then there is no need for any council action until the appeal is decided.

Even if the “stay” is not granted, council would be unwise to call a byelection, knowing that Ford might win the appeal and be back in office.

So, Canada’s largest city is now tied up in knots, thanks to a mayor who spends more time in court than some lawyers.

From the day he was elected mayor, Ford has fostered an “us and them” mentality in a government that runs only on consensus, absent political parties. He disparages political opponents as leftist, pinkos or worse. Now, apparently, the non-partisan judiciary is also against the mayor — directed by political operatives on the left.

No matter what your politics, know this: Mayor Ford brought this entirely on himself. The judge tossed aside every defence Ford’s lawyer presented. They either made no sense or were undercut by Ford’s own testimony in which he said he knew what he was doing and would do it again.

Unfortunately, Ford isn’t the only one who has to pay.

Toronto residents are without the mayor they elected — and if the decision of Justice Hackland holds through the expected court appeals — Torontonians may have to pay an estimated $7 million to stage a city-wide byelection to replace the mayor.

The mayor’s Ford Nation supporters will claim their man is being persecuted and hounded from office. His opponents will be glad to see him go. The rest of the city is left shaking their heads. And city council will be challenged to pull together and act in the best interest of the city — despite the shocking decision.

A common Toronto ethic calls for thoughtful governance, led by a reasonable mayor who balances the interests of all voters. Like Justice Hackland, most residents expect a “high standard” from the mayor. “Maintaining the integrity of government is the mayor’s most important job,” the judge wrote just before penning his most critical comments about Ford’s “dismissive and confrontational attitude.”

And the mayor’s troubles are not ended, even if this decision were to be overturned. Two more court cases are pending. Testimony in a defamation lawsuit ended last week, with a decision unlikely before Christmas. And in December 2011, Ford appealed a decision by the city’s compliance audit committee to order an audit of his election campaign expenses to see if he followed the rules in the municipal election.

At best, Ford will limp along — diminished in the eyes of his colleagues at council; cleared in the courts, yet tarnished in the eyes of the general public.

His approval rating is already at abysmally low levels for a mayor just two years into his term.

The case was never about corruption; the law is harsh and the remedies are too blunt, described as a “sledgehammer.” The legislation should be changed to allow other remedies, short of removal from office. But every city councillor already knows this — including Ford.

Despite 12 years at city hall, Ford approached this critical issue the way he does most matters — without care or caution, refusing to consider anything but his limited view of the world.

That character flaw finally bit him in the butt.

Royson James usually appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Email: rjames@thestar.ca

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.